Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.006041726 = product of:
  0.04229208 = sum of:
    0.036238287 = weight(_text_:web in 277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036238287 = score(doc=277,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 277, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=277)
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 277, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=277)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This study combines Web usage mining, Web link analysis, and bibliometric methods for analyzing research activities in research organizations. It uses visits to the Expert Protein Analysis System (ExPASy) server-a virtual research infrastructure for bioinformatics-as a proxy for measuring bioinformatic research activity. The study finds that in the United Kingdom (UK), Germany, and Spain the number of visits to the ExPASy Web server made by research organizations is significantly positively correlated with research output in the field of biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics. Only in the UK do we find a significant positive correlation between ExPASy visits per publication and the normalized impact of an organization's publications. The type of indicator developed in this study can be used to measure research activity in fields in which e-research has become important. In addition, it can be used for the evaluation of e-research infrastructures.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1374-1382

0.0050917473 = product of:
  0.03564223 = sum of:
    0.029588435 = weight(_text_:web in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029588435 = score(doc=5898,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 5898, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5898)
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=5898,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5898, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5898)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

To test feasibility of cybermetric indicators for describing and ranking university activities as shown in their Web sites, a large set of 9,330 institutions worldwide was compiled and analyzed. Using search engines' advanced features, size (number of pages), visibility (number of external inlinks), and number of rich files (pdf, ps, doc, ppt, and As formats) were obtained for each of the institutional domains of the universities. We found a statistically significant correlation between a Web ranking built on a combination of Webometric data and other university rankings based on bibliometric and other indicators. Results show that cybermetric measures could be useful for reflecting the contribution of technologically oriented institutions, increasing the visibility of developing countries, and improving the rankings based on Science Citation Index (SCI) data with known biases.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.10, S.1296-1302

0.004243123 = product of:
  0.029701859 = sum of:
    0.02465703 = weight(_text_:web in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02465703 = score(doc=1201,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=1201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This study analyses the coverage of seven free-access bibliographic databases (Crossref, Dimensions-non-subscription version, Google Scholar, Lens, Microsoft Academic, Scilit, and Semantic Scholar) to identify the potential reasons that might cause the exclusion of scholarly documents and how they could influence coverage. To do this, 116 k randomly selected bibliographic records from Crossref were used as a baseline. API endpoints and web scraping were used to query each database. The results show that coverage differences are mainly caused by the way each service builds their databases. While classic bibliographic databases ingest almost the exact same content from Crossref (Lens and Scilit miss 0.1% and 0.2% of the records, respectively), academic search engines present lower coverage (Google Scholar does not find: 9.8%, Semantic Scholar: 10%, and Microsoft Academic: 12%). Coverage differences are mainly attributed to external factors, such as web accessibility and robot exclusion policies (39.2%-46%), and internal requirements that exclude secondary content (6.5%-11.6%). In the case of Dimensions, the only classic bibliographic database with the lowest coverage (7.6%), internal selection criteria such as the indexation of full books instead of book chapters (65%) and the exclusion of secondary content (15%) are the main motives of missing publications.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 75(2023) no.1, S.43-58

7.48963E-4 = product of:
  0.0104854815 = sum of:
    0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 1284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0104854815 = score(doc=1284,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1284, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1284)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This article offers a comparative analysis of the personal profiling capabilities of the two most important free citation-based academic search engines, namely, Microsoft Academic Search (MAS) and Google Scholar Citations (GSC). Author profiles can be useful for evaluation purposes once the advantages and the shortcomings of these services are described and taken into consideration. In total, 771 personal profiles appearing in both the MAS and the GSC databases were analyzed. Results show that the GSC profiles include more documents and citations than those in MAS but with a strong bias toward the information and computing sciences, whereas the MAS profiles are disciplinarily better balanced. MAS shows technical problems such as a higher number of duplicated profiles and a lower updating rate than GSC. It is concluded that both services could be used for evaluation proposes only if they are applied along with other citation indices as a way to supplement that information.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.6, S.1149-1156

6.115257E-4 = product of:
  0.00856136 = sum of:
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=524,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 524, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=524)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This paper introduces a keyword map of the labels used by the scientists registered in the Google Scholar Citations (GSC) database from December 2011. In all, 15,000 random queries were formulated to GSC to obtain a list of 26,682 registered users. From this list a network graph of 6,660 labels was built and classified according to the Scopus Subject Area classes. Results display a detailed label map of the most used (>15 times) tags. The structural analysis shows that the core of the network is occupied by computer science-related disciplines that account for the most used and shared labels. This core is surrounded by clusters of disciplines related or close to computing such as Information Sciences, Mathematics, or Bioinformatics. Classical areas such as Chemistry and Physics are marginalized in the graph. It is suggested that GSC would in the future be an accurate source to map Science because it is based on the labels that scientists themselves use to describe their own research activity.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.12, S.2370-2377